|
Post by Ellestar on Feb 16, 2006 5:17:07 GMT -5
IIRC it should have been released at least a week ago.
|
|
|
Post by friedrichpsitalon on Feb 16, 2006 7:43:13 GMT -5
Want it sooner or want it better?
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Feb 16, 2006 8:13:51 GMT -5
It's not like they'll be able to fix everything with one patch so sooner is better
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Feb 16, 2006 8:35:09 GMT -5
Ellestar, I don't know if you played conquests; but the 1.20 patch was a step backwards.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Feb 16, 2006 12:54:21 GMT -5
whip u dont play civ4 but 1.52 was a step backwards aswell
i heard rumors that next patch will be final one
... same crappy customer service as with civ3 conqu
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Feb 16, 2006 13:34:03 GMT -5
Well before I got launched by Fried I can say that I was quite impressed by the work on the patch and the direction it was headed; that's all I can say or some special forces will come round my house and extract me to guantanemo bay. What the hell does IIRC mean anyway?
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Feb 16, 2006 20:42:44 GMT -5
whip u dont play civ4 but 1.52 was a step backwards aswell i heard rumors that next patch will be final one ... same crappy customer service as with civ3 conqu Too many pathes is confusing, when they change stuff like unit costs, and health values of a forest/jungle tiles. The next one is gonna make chops for settlers and workers less effective. I would like stability after the next patch, if connection issues or bugs still have to be fixed after that, then fine, but lets try and leave the game itself alone.
|
|
|
Post by friedrichpsitalon on Feb 16, 2006 21:50:05 GMT -5
The next one is gonna make chops for settlers and workers less effective.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Feb 17, 2006 1:24:19 GMT -5
What the hell does IIRC mean anyway? If I Recall Correctly. I think this abbreviation is as old as internet itself You can use this site www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=iircIt has a lot of abbreviations. Ellestar, I don't know if you played conquests; but the 1.20 patch was a step backwards. Civ 3 was horrible so i didn't. Just about any other TBS was more fun. MoM, MoO 1-2, SMAC, HoMM 3 multiplayer, Colonization etc. i heard rumors that next patch will be final one ... same crappy customer service as with civ3 conqu Final patch in an online multiplayer game? Developers should really get a clue. Both Diablo II and Starcraft are still being patched. Starcraft was released in 1998...
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Feb 17, 2006 3:23:00 GMT -5
guess there s a simple reason - starcraft is popular - civ4 is hm a lil game for some dudes
|
|
|
Post by deviousdevil on Feb 17, 2006 5:55:25 GMT -5
Or that there is an expansion on the way.
Good for Starcraft that it is still getting tinkered with...
|
|
|
Post by Atomation on Feb 17, 2006 14:35:26 GMT -5
But which came first...the chicken or the egg. I'd say the reason that starcraft is popular is mostly BECAUSE of its customer service, not so much vice versa. If you advertise a great game and give it lots of good service, people will play it. Alot. Gamespy just doesn't hold a candle to battlenet's ease of play and quality of service. Too bad civ didn't make their own dedicated server, I would pay extra extra in the expansion if it packed in its own dedicated game server and I am sure others would too!
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Feb 17, 2006 14:47:58 GMT -5
Yeah tony like I said when I referred to that leaked patch thing I wouldn't bank on that being the final be all and end all of the patch. Mind you it's not a bad idea I've seen many threads saying chopping is overpowered, saying that so is India but then I think we've been their too As long as the 20% build costs are reversed I'll be more than happy.
|
|
|
Post by zzZhenon on Feb 17, 2006 15:51:04 GMT -5
India is way overrated. Spain is the best civ ;D
I would rather Chopping were not nerfed. Treat your forests as a 1-use resource, hehe. Save some for later, cut some for now.
PS -- for all of the people complaining that there isn't enough copper/iron, I think adding Bronze as a resource would be a good idea. You could build swords, axes, spears, but nothing else. Then in the later game, make bronze be like Gold/Silver, you get extra commerce and happiness.
I dunno, just voicing some thoughts here.
|
|
|
Post by swissy on Feb 17, 2006 21:25:48 GMT -5
Uhm, if I recall my metallurgy correctly; bronze is a copper-tin alloy. So you cannot have bronze occuring naturally.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Feb 18, 2006 12:36:17 GMT -5
Swissy you Pedant I think you could require both tin and copper to build bronze units but it would severely inhibit dagger play which is inhibitted enough as it is now anyway. I think it would be interesting if someone were to mod it so that Iron appears on everyones map as it is so ridiculously common it's scarey. That way you could head straight for Iron. Would be an interesting mod to see what would happen if nothing else? Balanced mods are the way to go I've seen some real cool ones where you always start with at least one of the early resources in your borders, it's alot of fun especially with the build cost reversed too.
|
|
|
Post by zzZhenon on Feb 18, 2006 14:06:11 GMT -5
Uhm, if I recall my metallurgy correctly; bronze is a copper-tin alloy. So you cannot have bronze occuring naturally. You're right... I was thinking more historically -- Bronze Age, Greeks, etc. -- and completely overlooked that, lol.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Feb 19, 2006 4:45:01 GMT -5
You shouldnt need any metal to build axes and spears IMO, I could make a perfectly servicable spear without Iron or Bronze Bone spears are a good example. As are the Ku kris made from black obsidian of a resourceless weapon, axes could quite easily be fashioned from all sorts of non metal naturally occuring substances and were for millions of years of mankinds existence, in fact before we were Homo sapiens at all. The Aztecs don't use swords and in fact South americans developed very effective ways of warring without metal, ok they got thingyed by gunpowder units and startlingly naive leadership but that's beside the point. IMO there should be a better non resource starting unit. Or a few more resourceless UU's at the start. Mali and Inca and Aztec have rsourceless UU's but personally I think Inca's UU sucks and the Aztecs UU comes too late normally to be of any serious threat. Although since I never have a resource close I do like playing them ;D Mali's Resourceless UU is excellent especially in teamers, although I see far too many people trying to dagger with it, which against anyone half decent is a waste of time and hammers, better of hooking horse or bronze usually although I have taken out two players in a game in about 25 turns with them, you need alot of luck and alot of chops to really use them effectively on the early offensive. Pillage and defensive early units par excellence.
|
|
|
Post by salqadri on Feb 19, 2006 19:53:01 GMT -5
Starcraft rocks. Miss it. As for Civ, it is also popular, but in single-player. Nowadays, the world is moving away from single player, so yes, Civ4 wouldnt be as popular as Civ2, especially since its sooo difficult to connect to games in Civ4 (unless you know enough people with whom you have no issues). It kinda forces you to admit, that this game was not meant for MP and just give up trying to connect. Ofcourse, things got a little better with 1.52, but problems still exist.
|
|